TIGHAR

Amelia Earhart Search Forum => Artifact Analysis => Topic started by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 13, 2012, 10:31:03 AM

Title: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Martin X. Moleski, SJ on February 13, 2012, 10:31:03 AM
New research bulletin: "Notion of a Lotion." (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/62_LotionBottle/62_LotionBottle.htm)
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: C.W. Herndon on February 13, 2012, 11:34:22 AM
Very good news!
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Bruce Burton on February 13, 2012, 12:53:18 PM
Another small piece of the jigsaw puzzle appears to fit nicely. WTG!  :)
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Jeff Victor Hayden on February 13, 2012, 01:13:40 PM
A very well conducted investigation. All we need now is to find out how it and whoever owned it got there :)
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: richie conroy on February 13, 2012, 06:20:20 PM
great work guys

do we know when they stopped putting the little stamper on the bottles, i have circled the stamp on the one found on gardner

the stamp says BIU

which i think B = Balm, I = either Italian or Illinois an unsure what u is for poss united states ?

 
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Monty Fowler on February 19, 2012, 07:22:41 PM
Richie - I am not seeing what you are seeing. I see what looks like an abraded area on the glass, which, considering where it was found, in the midst of a lot of coral rubble (coral is pretty abrasive stuff), seems reasonable. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

LTM,

Monty Fowler
TIGHAR No. 2189 CER
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Harry Howe, Jr. on March 10, 2012, 11:34:31 AM

Richie
The Campana Company factory was built around 1936/37 and was far advanced for its time both in its architecture and its industrial functionality.  It was located on the west bank of the Fox River between Batavia and Geneva, Illinois.  At the time they envisioned it as a kingpin feature of the Batavia Industrial Unit  (BIU).

In the early '70s I worked at The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory which was near Batavia and passed the Campana Building many times on the highway and on the River during marathon canoe races on The Fox.  At that time the building was used by the Proctor-Gamble Co.  Trivia abounds.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Diego Vásquez on August 08, 2012, 04:44:00 PM
Now just whom might have brought an Italian Balm hand lotion bottle, compact rouge and mirror and a cosmetic cream jar common to circa 1930s America to a remote campsite on Gardner Island and left them there in ruin? 

According to entries in the Carey Diary  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Carey_Diary/Careydiary14.html) of July 13, 1937, it seems very plausible that the Campana bottle could have been brought and left by either Coast Guardsmen or islanders or both.  Carey mentioned that as the Itasca searched westward to the Gilberts for Earhart, they met with islanders on some of the islands (Tamana, Arorai) and traded their Western goods for the islanders' handicrafts.  According to Carey, "The sailors had quite a time with their sweet scented lotions --sprinkling it over the natives who craved it and accepted it in their trades."  Carey also mentioned that an island youth who had come aboard Itasca "went for the sweet smelling lotion and asked for beer."  The islanders apparently had already had some trade with Westerners as the chief was already wearing a silver belt buckle with the initials NM, and one of the men was wearing a dime store broach.  So in answer to your question "whom might have brought ...," it is conceivable that them might have brought it. 

I want to believe,

Diego V.

Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: John Kada on November 19, 2012, 11:08:23 PM

According to entries in the Carey Diary  (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Carey_Diary/Careydiary14.html) of July 13, 1937, it seems very plausible that the Campana bottle could have been brought and left by either Coast Guardsmen or islanders or both.  Carey mentioned that as the Itasca searched westward to the Gilberts for Earhart, they met with islanders on some of the islands (Tamana, Arorai) and traded their Western goods for the islanders' handicrafts.  According to Carey, "The sailors had quite a time with their sweet scented lotions --sprinkling it over the natives who craved it and accepted it in their trades."  Carey also mentioned that an island youth who had come aboard Itasca "went for the sweet smelling lotion and asked for beer."  The islanders apparently had already had some trade with Westerners as the chief was already wearing a silver belt buckle with the initials NM, and one of the men was wearing a dime store broach.  So in answer to your question "whom might have brought ...," it is conceivable that them might have brought it. 

I want to believe,

Diego V.

Diego,

The Bushnell Papers  (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bushnell)contain a somewhat similar story:

"We paid the native laborers 50 cents per man per day and on the last day permitted a few to come aboard and trade. If the Bushnell remained in this area for a few more months, no doubt a thriving industry in native arts and craft would be revived. Shark tooth swords, baskets, mats and model canoes appear to be the most popular articles for trade."

Perhaps the crew of the Bushnell, like that of the Itasca, bartered for crafts with their sweet scented lotions. Perhaps bottles of something made by Mennen. Or maybe bottles of beer?...
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 20, 2012, 02:41:16 AM

The Bushnell Papers  (http://tighar.org/wiki/Bushnell)contain a somewhat similar story:

"We paid the native laborers 50 cents per man per day and on the last day permitted a few to come aboard and trade. If the Bushnell remained in this area for a few more months, no doubt a thriving industry in native arts and craft would be revived. Shark tooth swords, baskets, mats and model canoes appear to be the most popular articles for trade."

Perhaps the crew of the Bushnell, like that of the Itasca, bartered for crafts with their sweet scented lotions. Perhaps bottles of something made by Mennen. Or maybe bottles of beer?...

That's really interesting Mr Kada - reminds me of those old black and white movies you see late on TV where the ship would be welcomed by the natives paddling out to trade and dive for coins.

But it makes you think about the ways the natives could get these ointments and stuff so easily.  You wouldn't see that now LOL.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Chris Johnson on November 20, 2012, 04:19:11 AM
Dan

Quote
But it makes you think about the ways the natives could get these ointments and stuff so easily.  You wouldn't see that now LOL.

Do you mean from a visiting US naval warship?  Some of the remote islands such as Pitcairn, Tristan de Cuna and so on still do a good trade with passing merchant vessels :)
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Chris Johnson on November 20, 2012, 04:20:08 AM
Don't forget that the island also had a thriving cooperative (coop) store where amongst other items to be purchased were shoes :)
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Dan Kelly on November 20, 2012, 04:41:45 PM
Dan

Quote
But it makes you think about the ways the natives could get these ointments and stuff so easily.  You wouldn't see that now LOL.

Do you mean from a visiting US naval warship?  Some of the remote islands such as Pitcairn, Tristan de Cuna and so on still do a good trade with passing merchant vessels :)

Thank you Mr Johnson.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on September 19, 2013, 05:05:37 AM
This topic hasn't been opened in some months, but it seems a shame to have left things hanging with regard to the possibility raised of the Gardner Co-op Store having carried Campana Italian Balm, especially since a statement of goods in hand (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Tarawa_Archives/1939_Co-op_Store/1939store_6.pdf) at the store was available.  Here's page 2 (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Tarawa_Archives/1939_Co-op_Store/1939store_7.pdf).  Here's the full TIGHAR report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Tarawa_Archives/1939_Co-op_Store/1939Co-opStore.html).  As I recall, Ric Gillespie and Bill Carter took some care to acquire this material by going to the Kiribati National Archive (KNA) in 2011.  The closest thing I can find to Campana Italian Balm in the goods list is Brilliantine, a period hair tonic.  I obtained a bottle of Brilliantine, put it next to the standard Campana-style bottle, and a photo is attached.  I note hair cream was found in an inventory (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Gallagereffects.html) of Gallagher's personal items taken down after he passed away; however, Campana Italian Balm would not have been construed in an inventory as hair cream.

This is nit-picky analysis, but the statute of limitations on these items never expires and unresponded arguments can leave the impression that these things have been conceded, when in fact quite the opposite is true. 

Now back to regularly scheduled programming...

Joe Cerniglia ~ TIGHAR #3078ECR
- Let the thing be pressed.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Doug Ledlie on May 07, 2014, 06:15:48 PM
Topic was looking lonely since Joe's last post so....

A Google image search for vintage or antique brilliantine bottle shows that "brilliantine" was produced by everybody and their brother pretty much, in a wide range of bottle sizes and styles and was even sold in ointment pots (in gel form).

Obviously the usage of the word Brilliantine on the co-op store inventory list can't be taken to indicate any specific producer and may be nothing more than just a generic reference to a period hair tonic.

Current ebay posting seems to be a similar bottle to the artifact, other than base stamping:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/X2-98-Vintage-Ideal-Hair-Dresser-And-Tonic-Bottle-RARE-/221278942476?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item338540b50c

Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 10, 2014, 07:41:21 AM
A Google image search for vintage or antique brilliantine bottle shows that "brilliantine" was produced by everybody and their brother pretty much, in a wide range of bottle sizes and styles and was even sold in ointment pots (in gel form).
Nice research, Doug.  I had not realized, prior to your mentioning it, that brilliantine is not a proper noun. It would seem Brilliantine was not a trademark but rather a common noun defined as any "scented oil used on men's hair to make it look glossy."  Brilliantine, therefore, was most likely not a name that could be trademarked as the special brand of a single producer.

Obviously the usage of the word Brilliantine on the co-op store inventory list can't be taken to indicate any specific producer and may be nothing more than just a generic reference to a period hair tonic.
While specific product brands e.g., Emu Tobacco (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Petersburg-Virginia-Emu-Ostrich-Australia-Tobacco-Crate-Label-Art-Poster-Print-/161074052274), Capstan Tobacco (http://www.tobaccoreviews.com/blend/1767/wd-ho-wills-capstan-mild-navy-cut), and Cabin Biscuits (http://yarolli.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/nigeria_cabin-biscuits.jpg?w=535) do appear to be mentioned in the inventory of 'goods in hand at the Co-op Store in 1939 on Nikumaroro (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Tarawa_Archives/1939_Co-op_Store/1939stpre_6.pdf), Brilliantine, which is also listed in the inventory, would not seem to indicate any easily identifiable bottle to which we could compare the artifact 2-8-S-2a.  Identifying X2-98 as Gallagher's bottle of Brilliantine would appear to be as great a challenge as saying Earhart's bottle was Campana Italian Balm.

Current ebay posting seems to be a similar bottle to the artifact, other than base stamping:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/X2-98-Vintage-Ideal-Hair-Dresser-And-Tonic-Bottle-RARE-/221278942476?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item338540b50c
We don't know for sure this artifact was Campana Italian Balm. We don't know for sure this artifact was Amelia Earhart's. The best we can do is look for the most probable match we can find (so far that's Campana Italian Balm) and use the archaeological record of its surroundings (its context) to formulate an hypothesis of how and why this bottle came to rest where it did.

This task is more difficult than one may suppose.  In terms of researching this artifact's identity, we used 3 criteria:
1) Does the candidate for a match share the artifact bottle fragment's shape and design.
2) Does the candidate for a match share the same base stamp, including placement of mold number, date code, plant code, and Owens-Illinois trademark.
3) Does the candidate for a match share similarities in chemical profile of its contents to that of the artifact (assessed using FTIR spectral results from an ISO-accredited lab (http://www.eag.com/cmss_files/attachmentlibrary/EAGIrvine17025cert_RTP.pdf)).

The Brilliantine bottle in the eBay auction you listed appears to satisfy criteria 1 and 2.  Criteria 3 is the most difficult to satisfy and it can also be the most revealing but it also poses the most challenges in interpreting the results.  Remarkably, I find that some formulations (here  (http://books.google.com/books?id=FDPnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=brilliantine+tragacanth&source=bl&ots=pa3pvI5dt1&sig=czIE1AJhc-AoVScu0oeuuLs2-oA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0x1tU5O4M42RyATI3IHACw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=brilliantine%20tragacanth&f=false), and here (http://books.google.com/books?id=PVcgAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA5-PA40&lpg=RA5-PA40&dq=brilliantine+tragacanth+gum&source=bl&ots=dW4MackkFt&sig=9x2HndyUSEbGv-w1MbdqFVVEHC0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vP5sU4XZEbLfsASbxYCQBg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=brilliantine%20tragacanth%20gum&f=false)) of Brilliantine did contain a key ingredient, Tragacanth Gum, which was detected as a 'good' match to a remnant on the artifact's interior. (Tragacanth was also on an ingredients list for Campana Italian Balm, and it was detected by FTIR on an authentic bottle of Campana Italian Balm as well).  These Brilliantine formulations, however, appear to be for "sticks" and "pastes" that did not pour well from bottles with a narrow finish (as the artifact had) but rather were usually put up in "squatty wide-mouthed bottles of about 2-ounce capacity." (quoted from link above)  Moreover, we know of no actual product that used these formulations and even if we did, the product would need to be in the exact same type of "imperial oblong" bottle, of which the artifact bottle fragment is an example.

Here is where the challenge begins.  To say with confidence that a current eBay posting for X2-98 vintage hair dresser is truly a "similar" bottle to the artifact, as you do say above, we would need to obtain a bottle of X2-98 exactly like the one pictured.  The bottle would need to have Tragacanth on its interior surface that separated (in the form of tiny reddish brown spots) from the overall product by the same processes of evaporation and decomposition that occurred over time on the glass fragment found at the Seven Site on Nikumaroro.  Then, in order to exceed the likeness of the chemical comparisons made between an actual Campana Italian Balm bottle and the artifact bottle, additional remnant materials would also need to compare favorably by FTIR analysis and interpretation.  (We were unable to find chemical similarities on all of the remnants found on the surface of the glass on the artifact, although we believe there are logical reasons why this would not necessarily have been expected.)

Does X2-98 deserve this test?  Certainly.  But it's frightfully expensive and the cost is the same whether the results come out as you expect them to or whether they don't.  I've put up a significant amount of time and resource on this artifact.  However, no individual has ever come forward who was willing to test these bottles on their own initiative.  A few years ago, a researcher brought me a bottle of Skat Insect Repellent with the same base stamp and shape as the artifact.  The critics howled I was unwilling to test it because I was afraid of what it might reveal.  So I did test it, on my own dime and posted the lab results (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.msg22435/topicseen.html#msg22435), showing Skat had no possible chemical resemblance.  Scientifically, I see the merit of testing each and every bottle that has even a 1% chance of matching the artifact.  However, at some point, I need to admit candidly, I simply can't afford to do that.  Perhaps you can, and if so, hat's off to you and congratulations.  I can refer you to the scientist who will test it if you're willing to put it to the test.  If it comes out X2-98 had Tragacanth, I'll modify all prior hypotheses I advanced on the artifact's identity and say that X2-98, a men's hair tonic, could, yes indeed, have also been a match to the artifact bottle fragment.

We've discussed this artifact at length since the research bulletin (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Research/Bulletins/62_LotionBottle/62_LotionBottle.htm) on this topic came out.  We've re-evaluated things such as when we think it was made and new information has come to light.  (For one, our bottle research guru Bill Lockhart believes the dating of this piece is not so straightforward as it once appeared.)  The bulletin needs an update and at some point we need to provide a more nuanced synthesis of everything we've learned and what still puzzles us.  This will take time but I'd like at some point to do it.  At this point I just don't know when.

I hope this rather extended reply, on a topic of which I've become admittedly "invested,"  does not come across as overly confrontational.  I love the bottle and appreciate the research and hope you will keep looking and commenting.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Monty Fowler on May 10, 2014, 08:09:15 AM
Joe brings up a valid point, and one oft repeated here (by me anyway):

"Questions are cheap. Answers are expensive."

Just howling that "we didn't test this" or "we should have tested that" has no merit, to me. If you think whatever the "it" is will produce some useful information towards the overall search, then by all means, feel free to put your money where your mouth is, as I have done a time or two.

Otherwise, it's just ... talk, basically. And talk is cheap. Answers are ... well, you know the rest.

LTM, who thinks dry paint is really interesting right now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Doug Ledlie on May 10, 2014, 09:03:02 PM
Wow...I was just trying to clarify a seeming inaccuracy up-thread on the nature of "brilliantine" so shared what a google search came up with.  The ebay link with a visually similar bottle just happened to come up in that search and was current so seemed like an interesting thing to post.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Mark Pearce on May 10, 2014, 10:43:45 PM

If it comes out X2-98 had Tragacanth, I'll modify all prior hypotheses I advanced on the artifact's identity and say that X2-98, a men's hair tonic, could, yes indeed, have also been a match to the artifact bottle fragment.


Gum Tragacanth does turn up as a hair lotion ingredient of the 1940s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GUM TRAGACANTH

This is commonly used not only for setting lotions for ladies  but also for fixative lotions for men. The following is an example of its use for the former.

Gum tragacanth     1.2g
Alcohol...                15g
Glycerine...               2g
Water...                  83g
Preservative...         q.s.


http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015048407954;view=1up;seq=272

Modern Cosmeticology; The Principles and Practice of Modern Cosmetics,
by Ralph G. Harry, Chemical Publishing Co., 1940.
-----------------------------------------

"[Gum tragacanth] enters into the composition of  numerous other toilet preparations such as emollient skin creams and lotions, nail polishes, shaving lotions, toilet milks, dental creams, depilatories and permanent wave fixers. As a binding agent it may be used in much the same way as gum arabic and is the basis of greaseless creams and hair fixatives now so popular."

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011436832;view=1up;seq=41

Vegetable Gums and Resins.
Waltham, Mass. : Chronica Botanica Co., 1949.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Monty Fowler on May 11, 2014, 09:01:50 AM
Interesting tidbits, Mark, but we're concerned with the 1937 time frame. Was the substance in question used in 1937 as well as the 1940s? Your research as moved it from the "dunno" to the "maybe" category. As always, we're going to have to find more documentation to be definitive.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 11, 2014, 09:40:34 AM
True indeed, Monty, and succinctly stated.

I've been wondering as I consider the questions about 2-8-S-2a whether there is in fact a lower standard of proof for those who seek to disverify an hypothesis than there is for those who would seek to verify it.  I ask it as a purely philosophical question, not entirely sure of what the answer ought to be.  I've been arguing that those who say there could have been a men's hair tonic with Tragacanth in that style of bottle should produce such a bottle and then test it, that the best evidence is still what has been tested and produced.  The artifact fragment correlates in style, in base stamp and chemical profile to Campana Italian Balm to a sufficient degree to say that evidence is compelling.  It's not the only evidence, and we never said it was.  It's just the best we have now. 

I wonder also why those who would disverify (and theirs is an honorable task for sure) don't take up the challenge.  I'm not aiming this at any one person, but surely the chance to provide scientific basis for doubt of what we "think" might be true is incentive enough for action.  It would come across less as negativism and more as objective fact-finding.  But where is the burden of proof?  Who has it, and can it, in any rational sense, be shared?  And regarding this bottle, is it all a moot point...Can one ever prove that 2-8-S-2a was one thing and couldn't possibly be any other thing, or is it all just a probability game whose merit lodges in collective opinion.  And what are the implications for the quest as a whole...

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Monty Fowler on May 11, 2014, 10:01:06 AM
I've been arguing that those who say there could have been a men's hair tonic with Tragacanth in that style of bottle should produce such a bottle and then test it, that the best evidence is still what has been tested and produced. 

What Joe said. Finding evidence that supports a different hypothesis is fine, the more the merrier, I say. But ... finding evidence and then quantifying exactly what that evidence supports, by testing for chemical residues, say, validates the evidence. Otherwise, it's just more, um, stuff thrown against the wall.

Talk is cheap. Answers are expensive. I firmly believe that The People will find Amelia and Fred. Joe and I are just two of the group that has made a conscious decision to put our money where our mouths are. More such participants are always welcomed with open arms (and perhaps even by a Godawful song by that Gillespie character).

LTM, who finds dry paint really, really interesting right now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Jennifer Hubbard on May 11, 2014, 08:41:57 PM
On questions of burden of proof, here's how I think of it:

With any artifact, we look at what we know about it, and whether each of those facts is consistent with AE/FN, or whether it excludes an association with AE/FN. If it is consistent with, we look at how many factors are consistent, how strongly consistent, how plausible the connection is, how many other possibilities there are, and how plausible the other possibilities are.

Just as a hypothetical example, if we were to find a bottle with a label on it for a brand of something that was never produced until 1949, we exclude AE/FN with high confidence. But if that brand was produced from 1931-1960, then AE/FN is possible, but other sources are also possible. If there is historical evidence establishing that AE/FN used that brand of material, the association is strengthened. If other people who were on Niku from 1931-1960 would have had an extremely hard time getting their hands on that brand, the AE/FN association is further strengthened. But if it was an extremely common brand that plenty of others could have plausibly brought there during that time, the association is weakened.

When other possibilities are raised in the evaluation of any artifact, they will each have their own weight of evidence: physical data and historical documentation being among the strongest. Possibilities that are not supported by evidence can be useful in brainstorming and in testing the confidence of our tentative conclusions, if nothing else. But if they don't have physical or historical records behind them, their usefulness will be limited.

Any scientist will acknowledge uncertainties ... but not all uncertainties are equal, and not all possibilities have to be given equal weight. And I don't get the impression that every commenter on the forum intends for every suggestion to receive equal weight. Some of it seems to be, "Here's a piece of info / here's an idea; could this be useful?"
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Mark Pearce on May 11, 2014, 10:30:00 PM

Interesting tidbits, Mark, but we're concerned with the 1937 time frame. Was the substance in question used in 1937 as well as the 1940s? Your research as moved it from the "dunno" to the "maybe" category. As always, we're going to have to find more documentation to be definitive.


Follow the link below to "Modern Cosmetics...", published in 1934.  Gum Tragacanth, or simply tragacanth can be found listed on 27 pages.  It's interesting to see it included in an after-shave lotion formula, [page 162]. 

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/search?q1=tragacanth&id=mdp.39015037504902&view=1up&seq=144
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Doug Ledlie on May 12, 2014, 05:37:44 AM
A round of applause for what Jennifer said...

Have been working with my daughter to try to get her through her high school math class and one of the topics recently was graphing.  One of the specific sections dealt with "scatter graphs" and I see the points that are raised in the forum being analogous to that type of graph.  ie there will be points out in left field that will ultimately have little or no influence on the final line plot even though they may be valid data points.  Point being that the ideas that may appear extraneous should not necessarily be beaten down right from the get-go.

To continue the scatter graph analogy, I guess some of us try to find a valid path through the data while others start with an assumed line and work backwards.

Just observing, not passing judgement on relative validity of either approach to the same goal.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Mark Pearce on May 12, 2014, 12:03:53 PM

Just as a hypothetical example, if we were to find a bottle with a label on it for a brand of something that was never produced until 1949, we exclude AE/FN with high confidence. But if that brand was produced from 1931-1960, then AE/FN is possible, but other sources are also possible. If there is historical evidence establishing that AE/FN used that brand of material, the association is strengthened. If other people who were on Niku from 1931-1960 would have had an extremely hard time getting their hands on that brand, the AE/FN association is further strengthened. But if it was an extremely common brand that plenty of others could have plausibly brought there during that time, the association is weakened.

When other possibilities are raised in the evaluation of any artifact, they will each have their own weight of evidence: physical data and historical documentation being among the strongest. Possibilities that are not supported by evidence can be useful in brainstorming and in testing the confidence of our tentative conclusions, if nothing else. But if they don't have physical or historical records behind them, their usefulness will be limited.

Any scientist will acknowledge uncertainties ... but not all uncertainties are equal, and not all possibilities have to be given equal weight. And I don't get the impression that every commenter on the forum intends for every suggestion to receive equal weight. Some of it seems to be, "Here's a piece of info / here's an idea; could this be useful?"

Yes, hats off to Jennifer-

Here's a piece of info / here's an idea - according to the web-page linked below, Skat insect repellent was produced in a 'cream' formula before the more common liquid form appeared in WW2.  Maybe this formula included Gum Tragacanth.

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/173482-rare-1oz-skat-insect-repellent-for-early-was-aid-kits/

"Very hard to find original 1oz Skat insect repellent. These are early war and were found in the early M1 Jungle first aid kit and were also issued individually."

"Wear to labels but are sound and full of contents. These early ones were a creme as opposed to the later type which are the liquid."



(http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_04_2013/post-1878-0-93316500-1365627406.jpg)

(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/WW2-Skat-insect-repellent-for-Jungle-first-Aid-kit-/00/s/MTAyNFg3NjQ=/z/UsUAAOxyuOtRa-kX/$T2eC16dHJHIFFhmk5y(HBR,-k(Kogw~~60_35.JPG)
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: John Ousterhout on May 12, 2014, 05:47:56 PM
Does Niku/Gardner have annoying flying insects?
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: John Ousterhout on May 12, 2014, 07:36:31 PM
A couple more SKAT-related things:

(from This Wikipedia entry: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skol_Company) "The Skol Company produced Skol antiseptic for sunburn[1] and Skol sunglasses[2] from the 1920s[3] through the mid-1940s. Based in New York,[4] their products were available in the United States and Canada.[5] George Gallowhur was president of the business.[4] He developed Skol suntan lotion in the Austrian Alps in the 1920s. He also introduced Skat insect repellent.[3]" (the reference sited is an obituary:  George Gallowhur, 69, Dies; Founder of Skol Company, New York Times, March 5, 1974, pg. 36.)
The date of SKAT introduction is ambiguous from this particular Wikipedia entry.  Perhaps someone with a faster connection than my dial-up can access the obituary for more details?

An E-how hHistory of Insect Repellents includes the following:  (http://www.ehow.com/facts_7177897_history-insect-repellents.html)"According to the University of Florida, several chemical insect repellents were patented in the 1920s and 1930s, including dymethyl phtalate in 1929, indalone in 1937 and Rutgers 612 in 1939. These active ingredients seldom appear in modern insect repellents.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/facts_7177897_history-insect-repellents.html#ixzz31YTvVFdL"

I was unable to find a patent for SKAT, hoping to find a list of ingredients and a date.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 12, 2014, 07:47:46 PM
Does Niku/Gardner have annoying flying insects?

No.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 12, 2014, 08:01:48 PM
Here's a piece of info / here's an idea - according to the web-page linked below, Skat insect repellent was produced in a 'cream' formula before the more common liquid form appeared in WW2.  Maybe this formula included Gum Tragacanth.
Nice work, Mark.  It appears you have come across the 6:2:2 formula of insect repellent.  We discuss it and indalone as an ingredient in this wartime formulation of Skat here (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N5FI58irYpUJ:tighar.org/smf/index.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D261.0%3Battach%3D4426+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari).  We'd need to test to be sure, but documentation we looked at showed dimethyl phthalate, indalone, and Rutgers 612 (http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=7211).  No Tragacanth is in this formulation so far as is known.

It would be nice if we had a bottle of this formulation in the actual style of bottle that was found on Niku.  The bottles pictured don't look at all like the Niku bottle fragment.  As you quoted from Jennifer, "Any scientist will acknowledge uncertainties," and I'm sure you will acknowledge that's one.

I feel it's only fair to point out that you've utilized a straw man here.  No one, including myself, ever claimed Tragacanth was limited only to women's personal care products.  It has been suggested, however, quite truthfully that we have no other product, yet, with that style and that base stamp that has been lab-tested as containing Tragacanth.  Saying repeatedly what could be true is not a good substitute for what has actually been tested as true, and it argues against a point that has not been made, namely, that Campana Italian Balm is the only possible solution to the riddle of that artifact's identity. 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 12, 2014, 09:07:18 PM
A round of applause for what Jennifer said...

Have been working with my daughter to try to get her through her high school math class and one of the topics recently was graphing.  One of the specific sections dealt with "scatter graphs" and I see the points that are raised in the forum being analogous to that type of graph.  ie there will be points out in left field that will ultimately have little or no influence on the final line plot even though they may be valid data points.  Point being that the ideas that may appear extraneous should not necessarily be beaten down right from the get-go.

To continue the scatter graph analogy, I guess some of us try to find a valid path through the data while others start with an assumed line and work backwards.

Just observing, not passing judgement on relative validity of either approach to the same goal.

The idea that TIGHAR starts with an assumed line and works backwards is often heard by critics of TIGHAR's work.  I know you weren't trying at all to be critical when you raised the point, and I applaud your fair-mindedness in not taking sides in inductive vs. deductive reasoning.  Still, if I'm reading you correctly, you observe that you prefer to let evidence lead you to a hypothesis rather than letting a hypothesis lead you to evidence.  That's fair enough and concerning tastes there can be no disputing.  Allow me to make an attempt, feeble as it may be since I am no exemplar of science, to defend the scientific pathway that "others," myself among them, have at times adopted.

In a court of law, having oneself be led in step-wise fashion by the evidence in a forward progression is an accepted mode of fact-finding. In science, however, I think the toolbox of accepted modes may be somewhat more diverse.  For myself, I agree with Marty Moleski when he calls this type of "working backward" instead a process of laboring at "confirmation of a theory."  It's perfectly OK, I think, to construct models of how you think things ought to behave IF you at the same time work diligently to confirm (or, as is perhaps more often the case, dispel) whether the models have any basis in fact.  Years ago, Ric Gillespie recommended to us a book whose central premise was just this point.  The book is Smart World by Richard Ogle (http://www.amazon.com/Smart-World-Breakthrough-Creativity-Science/dp/1591394171).  The chapters on how Watson and Crick determined the molecular structure of DNA make the best arguments in favor of the "retroductive" approach.  In explications of the scientific method I've read, this is called "making a prediction" based on a hypothesis.

I'd like to apologize if anything I said here seemed to beat down your idea.  You have effectively touched on some hot button issues, and my comments were probably more directed to a chorus of critics, many of whom I've encountered in private emails.  You found the bottle and that was great work.  These imperial oblongs aren't terribly easy to find.  I'm impressed with your willingness to bring it forward, so impressed, in fact, that I purchased the bottle from eBay today for a closer look.  The seller says it's completely empty; therefore, it probably can't be tested for the original contents.  Even so, I am interested in seeing it.

One needs to understand that anything having to do with that particular artifact, and a few others, that is brought up is entering into the middle of a long process of research and discussion.  I'm not trying be a wet blanket or take all the fun out of this process, although I know that sometimes I do do that.  As you can tell, I'm good at lecturing, not so much at dialogue.  Maybe one can begin from these points.  Either way, I'm glad you've chosen to take part in the discussion.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Doug Ledlie on May 13, 2014, 05:40:11 AM
Now Joe gets a round of applause, well said sir

Concerned that you are dropping your own dime for this (and previously)...

I know my significant other would beat me severely if I did such a thing.

Would there be a way to set up a small slush fund for this type of purchase, not sure of the logistics of managing such a beast though...
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Monty Fowler on May 13, 2014, 12:34:58 PM
TIGHAR does not have slush funds. It has "targeted research-specific expenditures."  ;D

And that's all I've got to say about that.

LTM, who thinks he'll slush a little something on some used paint,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Mark Pearce on May 13, 2014, 02:30:49 PM
Here's a piece of info / here's an idea - according to the web-page linked below, Skat insect repellent was produced in a 'cream' formula before the more common liquid form appeared in WW2.  Maybe this formula included Gum Tragacanth.
Nice work, Mark.  It appears you have come across the 6:2:2 formula of insect repellent.  We discuss it and indalone as an ingredient in this wartime formulation of Skat here (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:N5FI58irYpUJ:tighar.org/smf/index.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D261.0%3Battach%3D4426+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari).  We'd need to test to be sure, but documentation we looked at showed dimethyl phthalate, indalone, and Rutgers 612 (http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=7211).  No Tragacanth is in this formulation so far as is known.

It would be nice if we had a bottle of this formulation in the actual style of bottle that was found on Niku.  The bottles pictured don't look at all like the Niku bottle fragment.  As you quoted from Jennifer, "Any scientist will acknowledge uncertainties," and I'm sure you will acknowledge that's one.

I feel it's only fair to point out that you've utilized a straw man here.  No one, including myself, ever claimed Tragacanth was limited only to women's personal care products.  It has been suggested, however, quite truthfully that we have no other product, yet, with that style and that base stamp that has been lab-tested as containing Tragacanth.  Saying repeatedly what could be true is not a good substitute for what has actually been tested as true, and it argues against a point that has not been made, namely, that Campana Italian Balm is the only possible solution to the riddle of that artifact's identity. 


Joe,
I have no problem acknowledging the unbroken bottle might have once contained Campana's Italian Balm, although I believe it is still too early to completely dismiss other products such as sun tan lotion, hair tonic, or yes, the 'early and rare' government issued insect repellent mentioned before and in the link below. 
 
Considering that we now know - for certain - Campana's Italian Balm was recommended for use by men as a shaving 'aid', [and as a sun-burn remedy] would you now acknowledge it is entirely logical to propose the bottle was not brought to the island by Amelia Earhart [or FN], but arrived there as part of a Coastie's shaving/personal care kit?

[The 'early' Skat formula shown here (http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/173482-rare-1oz-skat-insect-repellent-for-early-was-aid-kits/) does not appear to be the 6:2:2 formula, but the 'first repellent issued' as described below,]
 
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3721349;view=1up;seq=151

Preventive Medicine in World War II. Office of the Surgeon General, Dept. of the Army. 1955

"...At the beginning of the war, insect repellents became the subject of intensive research by Government agencies and the Armed Forces, chiefly in  connection with mosquitoes and malaria. New repellents were adopted by the Army in 1942 and were issued toward the end of that year. Indalone  (butopyronoxyl), the first repellent issued, was superseded early in 1943 by  the much more effective Rutgers 612 (2-ethyl-l,3-hexanediol), and by dimethyl phthalate. These in turn, as stocks were used up, were replaced by a 6-2-2 mixture of dimethyl phthalate, "612," and Indalone; this mixture was adopted  late in 1943."


(http://tighar.org/smf/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=261.0;attach=5895;image)
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 13, 2014, 06:20:31 PM

 
Considering that we now know - for certain - Campana's Italian Balm was recommended for use by men as a shaving 'aid', [and as a sun-burn remedy] would you now acknowledge it is entirely logical to propose the bottle was not brought to the island by Amelia Earhart [or FN], but arrived there as part of a Coastie's shaving/personal care kit?



We now know Campana advertised possible uses they hoped men might find for its product because I purchased and scanned that flyer that you are posting as a new research finding.  I posted it on February 9 last year.
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.480.html
http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,261.480.html

Your statement claims a position I've never taken.  I said on February 9 last year:
"Mark Pearce asked that I post scanned images of the little flyer that shipped with the box of Campana Dreskin in 1934.  The flyer shows that Dreskin in certain instances was marketed as a product for both genders in 1934."

I think it entirely within the realm of possibility that 2-8-S-2a is a Coastie-fact, owned, brought and deposited by none other than the United States Coast Guard from 1944-1946.  I thought so then; I thought so now.  How much more conciliatory and conceding could I be? 

I do not think it within the realm of probability, however.  If I were asked to give odds, I'd estimate the odds at 20% at best.  That is only my opinion, of course.  I agree to disagree with you on the point.  I know you believe differently, and I am at peace with that.

Why do I think the artifact is castaway-related, if not possibly Earhart-related?
Well, a few reasons spring to mind.

The bottle is dated, not to within moral certainty, but to within reasonable doubt - to the year 1933.
Coasties and men in general were not known to be particularly acute to the dangers of sunburn in the 1940s, so far as I am aware, although for certain they DID shave.
When the context of this artifact is examined, we have on the same site within yards of where the bottle was found parts of a human skeleton, to whom no critic has ever wished to assign any personal belongings, BTW.  Just saying.
We also have a mirror compact, what looks to be a cosmetic cream jar (we can be more specific but let's call it that for now), and rouge along with a host of other telling artifacts that appear to be more castaway-related than Coastie-related.
We also have statements by the Campana Company that their product was unavailable in the 1940s, that World War II demand for glycerine, as well as trade issues with Iran for Tragacanth, both key ingredients in Campana, stopped its production.  See attached.   I grant that this is only a statement from an advertisement.  Campana was advertised as available throughout the war years, so these things need to be taken with a grain of salt.  However, I do think it indicates Campana was hard to procure during the war years, thus making it harder for a Coast Guardsmen to obtain.

This is part of the case.  I'm sure those who have researched it and have a better memory than mine can think of other things.  It's simply something I tend to think logically is more probable.  As has been stated recently, however, improbable things happen all the time.  You could be right. 

So why need there be contention?  There's room enough for all sorts of opinions.  I've dismissed nothing so far as I'm aware.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C


Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Steve Lee on May 13, 2014, 10:33:32 PM
I said on February 9 last year: "Mark Pearce asked that I post scanned images of the little flyer that shipped with the box of Campana Dreskin in 1934.  The flyer shows that Dreskin in certain instances was marketed as a product for both genders in 1934."

On the narrow point of who Dreskin was marketed to, here is a link to a 1939 issue of the Niagara Falls Gazette (http://fultonhistory.com/newspaper%208/Niagara%20Falls%20NY%20Gazette/Niagara%20Falls%20NY%20Gazette%201939%20Jul-Sep%20Grayscale/Niagara%20Falls%20NY%20Gazette%201939%20Jul-Sep%20Grayscale%20-%200885.pdf) containing an advertisement for Dreskin in which it is identified as a men's after shave, sold as a package deal (‘Both for 39 Cents’) with Barbasol Shaving Cream.  And here is a 1945 advertisement in the Torrance, CA Gazette (http://www.torranceca.gov/archivednewspapers/Herald/1944%20Sept%2014%20-%201946%20Jan%203/PDF/00000454.pdf) in which Dreskin is identified as after shave and a ‘Mens Needs’ product, as distinguished from the ‘Woman’s Needs’ products identified separately.   Mark Pearce found a similar ad (http://www.torranceca.gov/archivednewspapers/Herald/1944%20Sept%2014%20-%201946%20Jan%203/PDF/00000494.pdf) in another issue of the Torrance Paper.  I think it is fair to say that at the time Coasties were stationed on Gardner/Niku, Dreskin had been widely marketed as a men’s product for a number of years.

I haven’t followed the debate about what 2-8-s-2a is to form a strong opinion about whether it’s a Campana Italian Balm bottle or whether Dreskin is a good alternative possibility — reading up on all the research that has been put into 2-8-s-2a is a task I’m not sure I’m up to at the moment. But in any case I salute Joe, Mark and the others for their efforts considering the origins of this artifact.

-----
added: I forgot to mention this link to WW2-era radio program listings (http://radiogoldindex.com/cgi-local/p6.cgi?DateN=19440716;Date=July%20%20%20%20%20%2016,%201944): The First Nighter Program. July 16, 1944. Program #638. Mutual net. "Old Lady Shakespeare". Sponsored by: Campana Dreskin After Shave. A grand old lady of the theatre stages a final comeback...as cupid. See cat. #3475 for same script performed on the same show four years later. Virginia Payne, Hugh Studebaker, Ed Prentiss, Gene Baker (announcer), Forrest Barnes (writer). 28:49. Audio condition: Very good. Complete.1944 First Nighter program
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 14, 2014, 03:51:32 AM
Steve,
I appreciate the research and the compliment, as do I'm sure Mark and the rest.
Campana Dreskin did not contain Tragacanth, as demonstrated in the comparison of ingredient lists (shown below) between Italian Balm and Dreskin.

The artifact did contain Tragacanth, as did an authentic bottle of Italian Balm.

It may not close any doors to its possible use by men but it does satisfy me at least that Dreskin is an avenue that is not a likely identification.

The lab results have great value and are very telling if we will take the time to listen to what they tell us.

For me to be satisfied there is a candidate product for the artifact, whether insect repellent, hair tonic or ice cream, I would want to see Tragacanth on an FTIR graph (as interpreted) overlaid with the graph for the red-brown spots.  I would want to see that product in the same shape bottle with the same base stamping as the artifact.  Others have other standards of proof, but that's mine.

(Ice cream BTW often had Tragacanth.  Maybe the artifact was that.).
 :D



Dreskin ingredients :
F. D. & C. Color
Essential Oils
Glycerine
Boric acid
Methyl parasept
Alcohol

from Marion Gleason, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 1957


Ingredients list for Campana’s Italian Balm :
Essential oils
Alcohol
Phenol
Benzoic Acid
Gum Tragacanth
Glycerin
Sorbitol

from Marion Gleason, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 1957



Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: JNev on May 14, 2014, 06:03:53 AM
The context of the find (being with other odd items such as the compact / mirror, etc.) remains very interesting, as do the lab results.  While I appreciate the ongoing challenges (and each must have his standard, no problem with that) these points suggest something different from the ordinary expectation of this being a coastie contribution to me.

Excellent work, Joe.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Steve Lee on May 14, 2014, 07:19:20 AM
Steve,
I appreciate the research and the compliment, as do I'm sure Mark and the rest.
Campana Dreskin did not contain Tragacanth, as demonstrated in the comparison of ingredient lists (shown below) between Italian Balm and Dreskin.

The artifact did contain Tragacanth, as did an authentic bottle of Italian Balm.

It may not close any doors to its possible use by men but it does satisfy me at least that Dreskin is an avenue that is not a likely identification.

The lab results have great value and are very telling if we will take the time to listen to what they tell us.

For me to be satisfied there is a candidate product for the artifact, whether insect repellent, hair tonic or ice cream, I would want to see Tragacanth on an FTIR graph (as interpreted) overlaid with the graph for the red-brown spots.  Others have other standards of proof, but that's mine.

(Ice cream BTW often had Tragacanth.  Maybe the artifact was that.).
 :D



Dreskin ingredients :
F. D. & C. Color
Essential Oils
Glycerine
Boric acid
Methyl parasept
Alcohol

from Marion Gleason, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 1957


Ingredients list for Campana’s Italian Balm :
Essential oils
Alcohol
Phenol
Benzoic Acid
Gum Tragacanth
Glycerin
Sorbitol

from Marion Gleason, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 1957



Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C

Joe, I did see this earlier post of yours on the comparison of ingredients, which is why I limited my post to the 'narrow point of who Dreskin was marketed to'.  But, I do think it would be helpful if someone could find a listing of the ingredients of Dreskin during the 1944-1946 era when the Coasties were on Gardner/Niku. It is amazing that you were able to find a comparison of ingredients, but perhaps by 1957 the formula of Dreskin was different than during WW2?  I recognize that finding a 1940s recipe for Dreskin -- I'll give it a try myself, although I don't have a lot of time at the moment -- but it would be helpful.

A quick search on the internet indicates that Gum Tragacanth was an ingredient in some after-shaves in the days when pharmacists made after-shave at the store using formulas in druggist trade publications and books.  The mass-produced versions of after-shave and other drug store products that were available in the 1930s and 1940s, many perhaps even still available today, in some cases were pretty similar in content to the stuff druggists made themselves at the store back in the old days.  If I've learned nothing else from reading this thread, I've learned where I can find recipes to make almost anything in my medicine cabinet  :)

Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: JNev on May 14, 2014, 07:30:54 AM
With "no parabens", one hopes.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 14, 2014, 07:56:25 AM
We are truly indebted to the doubters.  The desperation evident in their efforts is the greatest testimony to the strength of the preponderance of evidence supporting TIGHAR's hypothesis.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Steve Lee on May 14, 2014, 08:03:39 AM
Gee, Thanks Ric.

Well put, as usual!
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Doug Ledlie on May 14, 2014, 09:06:35 AM
Preponderance of evidence defined

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1586&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: John Ousterhout on May 14, 2014, 09:59:24 AM
I found a large number of references to Gum Tragacanth being used in leatherwork, and as an ingredient in some leather finishes.   The combination of Gum Trag and Lanolin sounds like it could be a potential leather treatment to me (not a surprise - treatments for chapped hands also work for leather).  The idea brings to mind someone wanting shiny leather shoes, therefore not likely a native.  I find it hard to believe a 1930's leather treatment would match Campagna's FTIR signature, and be found in an identical bottle, I'd like to ask if a leather conditioner had been considered?  The more alternatives we can rule-out, the stronger our case becomes.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: JNev on May 14, 2014, 11:44:43 AM
Preponderance of evidence defined

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1586&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

What Doug said.

It can be parsed to death, but at the end of the day this pursuit will likely be about where it is today, choose your poison as a witness.

To expand on my comment of this artifact and its circumstances being 'interesting', I'll add that the whole picture is decidely compelling to me.  Just MHO, of course - and further to Ric's comment, we'll have no end of challenges to tickle away at 'what else it might be'.  More power to 'em, I 'spose, to each his own.

Having prepondered this and much more I continue to see Gardner / Niku as 'the place to look' if I were to hope for finding ruins of Earhart's last flight.  Others differ - whether they wish to merely have me and others take another objective look or to actively ping away at any confidence others might have in what TIGHAR offer, I can't know so well. 

What is striking, notwithstanding those who merely promote objectivity, is why any would bother wanting to chip away here, if that's the case: chip away at what?  This is where "the Earhart Industrial Complex (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1462.0.html)" seems to step in: there are definitely others  (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1480.0.html) going about this chase in their own ways (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1466.0.html), and perhaps as they see it, competing for public affections and dollars.

Perhaps?  Most distinctly, they are competing for affection and dollars, else we'd not see the pleas for attention on the open web.  It's a free world (well, some of it - and we're supposedly still at the hub of that) so nothing wrong with some competition, one supposes.

Far fetched to believe 'competing interests' would visit here to post or challenge?  Not at all - at least one of our favorite naysayers (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,1466.msg31345.html#msg31345) is a champion today for a current 'alternate hypothesis' (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/board,14.0.html).  That's fine, don't get me wrong - the man remains a friend and I believe even an enthusiast for my own enthusiasm (as I am for his) even if we believe in turning over different areas of heaven and earth to find that lost bird.

So where do the current challengers fall in all this in terms of intent?  Personally it doesn't matter to me.  I appreciate the reasonably mannered and well-thought out challenges and offerings of well-researched information, and am content to let the chips fall where they will, as I value the quality of the chase above all else.

Which leads me to one more observation where all these 'competing' efforts are concerned: none of the others are offering me one shred of tangible anything to 'preponder', only TIGHAR has put up sherds and scraps for us to whittle away at.  That's fairly ballsy of TIGHAR in my view and I like it.  The others have 'ideas' that vary from very intelligent possibilities to borderline nutty, or worse (in my view... tin hat please) - and not one of the others welcomes the kind of challenge that TIGHAR accepts on these pages.  Not knocking anyone else or their efforts, just making a personal observation: this is also rather ballsy of TIGHAR and frankly it gets my deeper affections and a few modest bucks now and then; I'm a bit hard pressed to find the same enthusiasm among the others where that kind of offering is not made.  TIGHAR stands alone in terms of accepting public criticism, in whatever form.

Goerner was close to Nimitz (http://www.ameliaearhartmovie.com/); Nimitz intimated whatver feelings he had about things and fed Goerner's thoughts in some way - sounds heavy, but not one moldy blindfold or shoe heel has turned up on Saipan to-date.  Goerner believes TIGHAR oversimplifies things...

Others 'just know' it had to be crash-n-sank - and some 'just know' where that had to be...

Others see targets in the sonar readings of former searches...

Consider that none are alone in these things - including TIGHAR, which did not 'make up' the first theory of the USN (a Gardner landfall possiblity).  Nor is Goerner and his concern for simplification not respected - including that someone as bright as Hooven (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Hooven_Report/HoovenReport.html) believed in a Japanese intervention (at Gardner Island, of all things...).

Lots of smart people.  Lots of pointers.  Lots of cross-encouragement, actually, among those who care to search - so one does naturally wonder, what of people who constantly work across the grain of those who seek?  Do they do so, or do they merely wish to enhance the depth of the effort?

Short of the obvious troll, maybe that simply depends on how one 'takes' the offering.  But what is odd is the 'competing effort' reality and the nature of some of the challenges now and then - it really does remind one that competition is alive and well. 

All over a Kansas girl who disappeared in the vastness of the Pacific in 1937, who, to keep this relevant by a sliver, did use 'stuff' that is consistent with the 'sherds and scraps' we've been discussing on this very site for some time and with a great deal now of depth.  That peculiar interest may be a book in and of itself.

So back to the topic - cool stuff - and indeed, my own preponderance puts it way up the ladder of interest in sniffing out what happened to Amelia Earhart - how very odd that these lady-like things of the right vintage turned up where some wretched castaway was apparently finally rendered by coconut crabs many decades ago.  How very odd that the more good folks like Joe study these things, tell-tale remains suggest commonality to the kinds of things that aviatrix was associated with - didn't like freckles and was camera conscious.

And how unique that it can be discussed to such depth in a place so easy to access - thanks, TIGHAR - you are alone on that stage.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Mark Pearce on May 15, 2014, 01:42:44 PM

A quick search on the internet indicates that Gum Tragacanth was an ingredient in some after-shaves in the days when pharmacists made after-shave at the store using formulas in druggist trade publications and books...
 

Thanks Steve.  Here is clear evidence Gum Tragacanth was also an ingredient in some insect repellents as I proposed earlier. (http://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,599.msg31644.html#msg31644)

http://www.google.com/patents/US2404698

INSECT REPELLENT COMPOSITION
US Patent Office, #2404698 A
Filing date Jan 4, 1945

"...Insect repellent compositions presently available are widely used with considerable effectiveness, especially in combating various types of mosquitoes. Great quantities of these materials are used by the armed forces operating in tropical zones where mosquito control is particularly imperative. These compositions are generally employed in liquid form. In this form,  however, they are characterized by a serious defect in that the period of effectiveness is too short.  Ordinarily the liquid repellent compositions are effective for less than 3 hours. Application, handing and shipping, wastage and undesirable stickiness also suggest the need for improvements in such products. Attempts have been made to prolong the effective period by additive ingredients designed to retard the volatilization rate of the active repellent components. Partial success has been achieved by preparing the compositions as emulsions or gels which may include, water soluble colloids such as gum tragacanth, waxes, oils and cellulose esters. However, previous products of this type are objectionable because of the large amounts of additive ingredients required to form gels and because of appearance, excessive dirt collection, stickiness, oiliness, or instability during extended storage or at high temperatures where there is a tendency to liquefy or at low temperatures where there may be a tendency to crystallize...


Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 15, 2014, 02:24:51 PM

For all who wish to challenge the hypothesis that Artifact 2-8-S-2a contained Campana Italian Balm -  Joe Cerniglia has identified a product that matches everything we know about the artifact and its contents.  When you have done the same for an alternative product go ahead and make your case.  If it's as good as the case Joe has made we'll post it.  Until then, the moderators will not be approving your postings.  We have no desire to stifle legitimate review but the criticisms have degenerated into trollism. 
To assist you in doing meaningful research, I'll ask Joe to list the requirements for a viable alternative source for Artifact 2-8-S-2a.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 15, 2014, 04:57:47 PM
To assist you in doing meaningful research, I'll ask Joe to list the requirements for a viable alternative source for Artifact 2-8-S-2a.

Here is what the diploma should say:  ;D :D

Hear ye.  Hear ye.  Be it known by these presents that researcher [fill in your name here] has completed satisfactorily all the requirements of TIGHAR for presenting a candidate sibling for artifact 2-8-S-2a and has demonstrated knowledge of what these requirements are:

The product is contained in an imperial oblong bottle in the style of  Edwin Fuerst's Jan. 5, 1932 patent (http://www.google.com/patents/USD85925), and the bottle has been so designated as an example of this patent by virtue of the patent number 85925 present on the bottom of the bottle.

The product has the maker's mark, plant code, date code and mold number in the same configuration as on the artifact bottle on the bottom of the bottle.

FTIR results (or any other suitable experiment you can design) from the contents of alleged sibling bottle have been shown by an ISO-accredited lab to be consistent with Tragacanth Gum.

Helpful but not required:
An ingredient list from an authoritative published source, as proximate in time to the 1930s or 1940s as can be found, that names Tragacanth as contained in the exact same sibling product, and specifically names that product by maker and brand name.

Labeling on the product bottle itself that states Tragacanth was present.

Done in the town of Oxford, PA, I, Ric Gillespie do affix my signature and the seal of TIGHAR on this date [insert date here].

(Church bells peal; crowds rejoice, etc., etc.)  ;)

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 15, 2014, 04:58:36 PM
BTW, I admire the Tragacanth research above.  However, we must keep in mind two points.
First, a patent does not necessarily indicate a product from that patent was ever produced, much less sold.   There are many patents that propose inventions and innovations that never make it to market. (http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/intellectual-property-law-patent/15258080-1.html)

Second, the finding above from a printed source that Campana regretted World War II shortages for Tragacanth ("one ingredient from Persia") that kept Italian Balm off the market ("there was no Italian Balm to be sold because Campana refused to use substitutes") IS significant, I believe.  Moreover, this type of shortage would affect EVERY wartime product that used Tragacanth, including mosquito repellents, if any.

There seems to be evidence the wartime shortage of the ingredient - Tragacanth - that was found clinging to the artifact bottle  - was real:
From Perfumery and Essential Oil Record, Volume 34, 1943 (http://books.google.com/books?id=W1UVAQAAIAAJ&q=tragacanth+substitutes+1942&dq=tragacanth+substitutes+1942&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lDp1U7H-JbfNsQS59YCYBg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAjgK)
"The shortage of tragacanth has impelled reformulation problems not only in the field of cosmetics but also in the pharmaceutical industry."

It's looking a bit tougher to put tragacanth - of ANY kind - into the hands of the Coasties.  If Iran raised its prices to astronomical levels, which it seems they did, there was no profit in selling this product during the war years. 
"Prices of exports — carpets, dried fruits, lambskins and furs, gum tragacanth, leather and hides and wool — have been rising, while prices of imports have been falling." The Economist, Volume 151, p. 72, 1946 (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=iran+raised+prices+on+tragacanth+in+1942&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=iran+raised+prices+on+tragacanth+in+1942&rls=en&tbm=bks)

Of course, you could always ascribe such a bottle - if it existed - to the colonists, who lived there before the shortage, but then again, wouldn't the colonists have known well in advance of going to Nikumaroro that there are no mosquitoes there?

From Chemical Industries, Volume 59, page 742, 1946: (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=no+tragacanth+has+left+Persian+gulf+and+unless+shipments+reach+the+U.S.+before+the+end&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=no+tragacanth+has+left+Persian+gulf+and+unless+shipments+reach+the+U.S.+before+the+end&rls=en&tbm=bks)
"No shipments of tragacanth have left the Persian Gulf for some months, and unless shipments reach the U. S. before the end of the year an acute shortage is in prospect."

Of course, no door has been shut for certain.  As Bill Lockhart once told me,
"Several times, in our research, the Bottle Research Group has accused me of the absurd, going off the deep end, positing something that is too extreme to be seriously considered.  A remarkable number of times, the strange and unlikely has proven to be correct -- once we were willing to entertain it.
 
This does not mean that I support spending an enormous amount of time and money chasing will-o-the-whisps through swamps -- but we should at least look to see if one of them really IS the answer."

That's my approach as well.

The bottom line is we have heard the proposals for hypothetical bottles that COULD have existed.  And make no mistake about it: They could have existed and still might be found.  In my observation, however, we have only one sibling that we actually have IN HAND with the specifications listed.
 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C

 
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Monty Fowler on May 15, 2014, 05:58:39 PM
*thumbs up to Ric* When the presentation of evidence degenerates into a "Got ya last!" contest, it's time to regroup and remember why (most) we're here.

LTM, who finds dry paint really interesting right now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 16, 2014, 04:24:15 AM
I removed Steve Lee's post that Joe replied to because it does not meet the standard I set for further discussion of this topic.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 16, 2014, 05:46:22 AM
A little perspective may be in order here to re-focus the thinking.  Ric has known and has said rightly, and I agree, that 2-8-S-2a is not going to solve the mystery on its own, or even in its context, compelling as the artifact may be to some, contentious as it may be to others.  At most it can stimulate discussion and interest in going after the things that WILL solve the mystery - such as finding the airplane, a future "smoking-gun artifact" from the Seven Site, or a mitochondrial DNA match to bone fragments found on Nikumaroro, or perhaps someday, in Fiji.  And this is no small thing when you consider how small this bottle is.  But perspective is in order: You could procure a notarized inventory of the Electra's contents at Lae with Italian Balm on it, and it still wouldn't solve the mystery.  (The critics would say "everyone and his brother had one," and you don't know that Earhart wound up on Nikumaroro to deposit it anyway.) You could invoke scientific tests that match the bottle to within 99.99% certainty to Italian Balm, and excludes all other brands and products, and it still wouldn't solve the mystery.  (It still doesn't prove it was Earhart's and that she brought it to Niku.)  You could prove very little of Tragacanth made it into the U.S. from 1942-1946, and it still wouldn't solve the mystery. (Critics would say that a few bottles made it to market and a Coastie brought it as part of a shaving kit.)   And they wouldn't be wrong for invoking these things, if the purpose of 2-8-S-2a was to solve the mystery.   

But it's not.  The purpose is to build the superstructure of circumstantial evidence, if possible, and always - always - to keep context in mind.   Archaeology accepts all kinds of context, discriminating against none.   Read up on the radio messages, Gallagher's correspondence, other artifacts, what the Navy thought and said during the initial search, and on and on.

I still think that further comparisons to any other bottles - IF they are found - would be of value to see whether this tells us about whether this piece of evidence is or is not as strong as we think it is.  So far those bottles have not come to light, and we have looked extensively and so have the critics.

One further point I would like to refine on the "diploma" stipulation above is that the materials scientists know how to interpret their results, so IF another sibling bottle were to be located, and IF that bottle had testable material, they would not base their interpretations and conclusions on whether or not the sibling contained Tragacanth, but rather on whether it contained functional chemical groups that are consistent with the FTIR spectral signature on the artifact.   If those scientists were to say that there is concordance between those spectral signatures - whether that is concordance between gums, oils or whatever - they would then aver that the sibling would, if it meets all the other requirements for the bottle itself, be a candidate "match."

But all this is a discussion of bridges we have not encountered much less cross.  My challenge is a fair one.  Further testing is warranted when rival or superior sibling bottles are located.  Find them, and we can discuss further.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C

For more on prior research, see the attachment of follow-up discussion on 2-8-S-2a from a while back.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 16, 2014, 07:58:44 AM
I say again, if you think you have an alternative candidate for the source of the artifact present your case.  If it meets the criteria, we'll post it.  Speculation about possible alternative explanations for isolated parts of the equation will not be approved for posting if you're already on moderation or be removed as soon as we see them - and then we'll put you on moderation.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 17, 2014, 10:06:23 AM
The bottle that started this recent debate was discovered by Doug Ledlie.  It is for an imperial oblong bottle of Ideal Hair Dresser and Tonic, Greaseless, in the same style bottle as the artifact.  It has some similarities to the artifact 2-8-S-2a in the base stamp but lacks the artifact's stamped patent number and has no attached product remnant inside.  I purchased the bottle on eBay and it has arrived. 

A group of us who help out with bottle research for TIGHAR, historical archaeologist Bill Lockhart, chemist Greg George, and me, discussed this bottle last evening.  Attached are some preliminary points from our discussion thus far.   All are open to future revision and we would invite any who have research they can add to do so within, of course, the parameters of this Forum's prior cautions on the topic.  Additional attachments will follow this post if the site allows.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 17, 2014, 10:07:49 AM
Additional attachments to the preceding post.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on May 17, 2014, 11:29:11 AM
It has some similarities to the artifact 2-8-S-2a.

"Some similarities" doesn't cut it.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 18, 2014, 05:50:00 AM
Campana Italian Balm is still looking like the frontrunner of this identification process.  Other candidates (and right now I don't see any) can try but they know their work is cut out for them.   I did want to give this Ideal Hair Dresser bottle a legitimate go-round with the bottle research group that was as objective as we could possibly make it.

Yesterday our group stumbled on some information that dates the Ideal Hair Dresser bottle on eBay to as precise a range as we've ever been able to identify any bottle.  It appears from a reliable source that Royal Specialty Company, maker of Ideal Hair Dresser, was forfeited by 1941. See attachment. I was not familiar with the forfeiture concept but the state of New Jersey defines it (http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/ucc-charter/temp_defs.aspx) as a lapse of 5 years in required legal filings (translation - didn't pay its taxes), so I assume this means that the company was years defunct by the later date of production for the bottle one could have derived from its date code.  1941 is completely ruled out as a production date for Ideal Hair Dresser, as is most of the latter half of the decade of the 1930s.  By process of elimination, this particular eBay Ideal Hair Dresser bottle was manufactured in 1931.  Bill Lockhart calls this a "smoking gun" of this dating process for Ideal Hair Dresser and if you know Bill, he's not given to that kind of hyperbole without merit.

The bottom line is efforts could be expended to locate a bottle of Ideal Hair Dresser WITH the correct patent number approved by the U.S. Patent Office in 1932 and WITH remnant inside that could ultimately be tested and did correspond with the artifact's remnant, but the end result of testing this hypothetical bottle - which is not yet known even to exist - would at best only be to entrench more firmly the identification of 2-8-S-2a within the castaway era and bring it chronologically more distant from the U.S. Coast Guard.

Cheers.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Doug Ledlie on May 18, 2014, 07:50:28 PM
Here's a thought that I didn't find discussed yet and might serve to eliminate the co-op store as a source for the artifact, at least per the '39 inventory list...

Says Brilliantine - 21 bottles - 2-5-6, which I think means the total value of the 21 bottles was 2 pounds, 5 shillings, 6 pence.

To divide that by 21 I need to understand vintage British money:
20 shillings per pound
12 pennies per shilling
http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/moneyold.htm

So 2.275 pounds for 21 bottles in 1939 if I did the math right.
Therefore 0.11 pounds per bottle
Convert that to 1939 U.S. dollars....not a clue

So...Guessing a similar exchange rate as today suggests price per bottle was only about 20 cents.  I have to think that would be a very small bottle ie smaller than the artifact.

Sound math and assumptions?

I think a while back someone posted scans from an old sears catalog in relation to the Dr Berrys cream, if they have a full catalog that also includes hair tonic with container size and pricing (any brand would probably be in the ballpark), we could confirm.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 19, 2014, 08:24:51 PM
Fascinating line of research, Doug.  We have a few imprecisions, however:
We don't have the volume capacity of the artifact because the only piece recovered was the bottom.  It's been estimated at between 2 and 3 ounce size, but no one knows for sure.
The year the Co-op store inventory cited was written was 1939, wartime for Britain, and price fluctuations in wartime are common.
We don't know if American sizes of bottles and sizes of bottles imported to Gardner were equivalent. (I would bet these imports weren't American, as the artifact is.)
There are probably a dozen others that could be thought of.

Even so, I did do a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the prices involved.

I agree with your math of 2.275 pounds as equivalent to 2-5-6 (2 pounds, 5 shilling, 6 pence).  According to a graph someone made of exchange rates around the period of the Co-op Store, the pound and the dollar had apparently been "pegged" in World War II at $4.03 (http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist-graph.htm).  Today's exchange rates aren't a valid comparison.

At 2.275 pounds X $4.03 dollars/pound, I get 9.16825 dollars.  Divide that by 21 bottles and I get $.43658 per bottle.  Call it 44 cents per bottle of Brilliantine.

In 1939 America, you could buy Vaseline Hair Tonic in the Fir Drug Store (http://smc.stparchive.com/Archive/SMC/SMC03301939P04.jpg) for 39 cents for a small and 69 cents for a large.  I don't know what that means in ounces, but Campana Italian Balm in 1939 sold 29 cents for 2.25 oz., 47 cents for 4 oz., and 79 cents for 9 ounces (price held steady all year in the Sears catalogs from 1939).  Based on those price ranges, the 44 cents sounds like a medium bottle, so a best guess would be 3-4 ounces.  If the volume estimate at 2 oz. of the artifact is reasonably close and if the price-to-volume ratio estimate of the Gardner Brilliantine bottles is within the ballpark, the artifact would have been a smaller size bottle than the Co-op Brilliantine.

But notice I said "would have."  That's a guess masquerading as a fact.  But we can intuit some things just as easily - and possibly even be right:  If the artifact bottle really is the small size for the product it contained (and one can't deny it does look small), that's an unlikely choice for an islander in a remote place who doesn't expect store shipments all that often.  It's also the least economical size for someone who might not have very much money to spend on hair tonic.  It might be a highly likely choice for a "travel size," for someone who just needs enough for a trip. 

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C


Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on May 20, 2014, 05:22:59 AM
It's worthwhile noting for the record Gallagher's personal inventory did contain skin cream and hair cream.

http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Documents/Gallagereffects2.html

I've been reading about the importance of context to archaeologists such as K. Kris Hirst.  Her article here (http://archaeology.about.com/cs/ethics/a/context.htm) has relevance.

I don't think there will ever be a single agreed-upon story for this artifact, but that's OK.  The analysis has succeeded in avoiding what Hirst decried, an over-simplification or ignoring of context.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: JNev on May 20, 2014, 08:10:09 AM
Fascinating article and both points of view are well taken in this.

I appreciate that the real treasure is the story context can provide and would hope that what TIGHAR does as it digs into the physical details of these things is really an extension of context: where it was found and what with is well recorded; now, what thumbprints does it bear that may be relevant to that story, by extension?

I get some 'side challenges' on these things - proper enough since we don't need open-ended 'what ifs' here, and I find the dialogue constructive - but one point is always in the back of my mind: short of definitive DNA or some other smoking fingerprint, these things are 'pointers'.  I'm not sure we can ever prove an Earhart presence unless we find a picture of her holding a particular bottle, say with a chipped corner or other definite identifying feature in evidence; what we can gain is confidence - to build the picture that context can give, and then make a judgment of our own.

And there I go again - making myself "difficult to understand", when in fact it is quite simple: one should ascribe to these things the weight one believes is reasonable, given the best picture that can be developed from them; I may express my opinion of that openly, but I'm not trying to force others to see it my way. 

Consider - if someone found a rag-tag cluster of rotting kapok-stuffed jackets tangled up with a rusting octant and other items including the remnant of what appears to be a lady's shoe from the '30's, all caught on Kingman's Reef and some of it looked a lot like something out of a picture from Earhart's flight publicity shots, I'd pay attention - and that would be a place to consider looking in.  "Markers" is how I think of them.

So these bottles and things are 'markers' to me - and they lie (or did lie) not only among the soil of Niku, but within the greater context of other things - ideas that arose long ago given other things like possible radio calls and notions of what a landplane navigator might well do if primary landfall didn't materialize, etc.  Big picture.

It is all about wanting to know what the story really was.  What we do seems as good as any until someone finds more 'markers' than we have to look at - and of course they are striving to do so, even as we strive to make the most of what we have found.

If nothing else, maybe this platitude will confound some while pissing off some number of others...  ;D  In any case, it's nice to be among the curious who can peel a bottle more finely than an onion.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Monty Fowler on May 20, 2014, 03:02:36 PM
What Jeff said. The balm bottle will never, ever, be accepted as the "any idiot artifact" by its legions of detractors ... but ... It already has, and I don't doubt it will continue, to add to our "body of knowledge" about what we think happened on Niku in 1937.

Remember, it takes an awful lot of bricks to build a respectable wall. The mortar that holds TIGHAR's wall together gets a little bit stronger with ever bit of knowledge added to it.

LTM, who finds dry paint really interesting right now,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on June 12, 2014, 06:13:12 AM
I wanted to follow up with some marvelous work Greg George did to research the history of Royal Specialty Co., the maker of the "Hair Dresser and Tonic" bottle (photos upstream in thread), which was put forward as an alternative identity for the artifact 2-8-S-2a.   Greg says:  "I have reason to believe the Royal Specialty Manufacturing company of New York was defunct by 1931, when the owner began selling radios, certainly by 1936. when the owner declared bankruptcy.  If the found bottle was a product of this company, it can't have been made later than this.  Meyer Eisenberg operated Royal Specialty Manufacturing Company in New York at least until 1924 (see below).

Eisenberg was selling Philco radios in a variety of locations as Municipal Radio Company in Brooklyn by February 1931.
http://www.newspapers.com/image/#57568877.  According to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of June 12, 1936, he declared bankruptcy in 1936. However, interestingly, the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reports on May 27, 1943 that Eisenberg was among those sending "shaving equipment" to servicemen for what appears to have been a Jewish service club.  A December 28, 1944 Brooklyn Daily Eagle article shows that thousands of such gift packages were sent overseas, and Meyer Eisenberg was vice president of the club."  Supporting clips are attached at the end of this post.

Greg deserves our thanks for that research.

This kind of diligence, which is commonplace in the bulletins and articles on this website, contrasts with the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Campana_Company) on Campana Company, stating, in a revision of May 15, 2012 (right around the time that research on 2-8-S-2a was becoming more widely known): "Campana Balm was carried by every U.S. soldier and serviceman to prevent or heal burns."

A few weeks later an Earhart reference was added to the article, which I removed since it had concluded without supporting evidence that Earhart was a "famous user."  I left the serviceman comment in place even though it is equally unsupported.

This calls to mind former comments about TECTIC (the Earhart Conspiracy Theory Industrial Complex).  This forum and organization is often charged by its critics to be lacking in scientific rigor, with research that displays confirmation bias, working backward from an assumed line, conveniently finding things it needs to be true so that it can support its Nikumaroro hypothesis about the fate of Amelia Earhart.  When I read things such as this Wikipedia article, however, I'm led to ponder just which side of the debate is more willing to distort a fact to suit its needs.

Judging by the number and type of criticisms employed, one might assume TECTIC was greatly disturbed by our research on glass artifacts.  They needed to isolate each piece contextually and to discredit it.  They would and will dismiss with fact-free generalities, employing a lesser standard of evidence for disverification than TIGHAR employs for verification.  They are not content with the fact that a few servicemen could have carried Italian Balm with them.  They needed to have every soldier carry it as ubiquitously as the c-ration.  This desperation, as it has been called, is a measure of just how worried these folks have become that TIGHAR just might be right about its hypothesis.

Of course, a friend of mine, one who has been to Nikumaroro many times, on hearing my complaints, remarked that I shouldn't get too worked up by what I read on Wikipedia, since a lot of what may be found there is opinion rather than peer-reviewed research.


Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
   
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Monty Fowler on June 12, 2014, 11:20:17 AM
Of course, a friend of mine, one who has been to Nikumaroro many times, on hearing my complaints, remarked that I shouldn't get too worked up by what I read on Wikipedia, since a lot of what may be found there is opinion rather than peer-reviewed research.

There's a reason that Wikipedia citations are not allowed by most college professors ... and for another thing, it forces the kids to think a little more on their own, and work a little harder, both of which are good things.

LTM, who continues pondering the mysteries of dried paint,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 ECSP
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: matt john barth on June 14, 2014, 09:52:28 AM
good article thanks for the update.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on July 30, 2014, 05:05:15 PM
I recently acquired this bottle of Campana Italian Balm from eBay.  The label says 1927.  The base is devoid of any embossments, unlike the artifact, which is dated, to the best of our knowledge, to around 1933. 

In her initial 2007 report (http://tighar.org/Projects/Earhart/Archives/Expeditions/NikuV/Analysis_and_Reports/Bottle/bottle.pdf) on the 2-8-S-2a bottle fragment, Jennifer Mass described a white remnant "with a flakey morphology on the center of the bottle bottom."  This flakey remnant was identified as "oil such as rapeseed oil or linseed oil and lanolin."

One of the things that has always puzzled me about the hypothesis the artifact was Campana Italian Balm is that I have never been able to find a bottle of this product with any white flakey accretions.  (Admittedly, I've only located about 4 or 5 examples out of millions that were sold.)

Ric, does the attached photo remind you of that remnant with the flakey morphology?  (I hope his question does not seem flakey.)

Note: These photos may need to be downloaded to a computer for best resolution.  They magnify at an odd scale when simply clicked.
Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Ric Gillespie on July 30, 2014, 06:07:01 PM
Ric, does the attached photo remind you of that remnant with the flakey morphology?  (I hope his question does not seem flakey.)

This is the best photo I have that shows the white stuff. I wouldn't have said it had a flakey morphology. Before Jen described it I had assumed that it was part of an insect cocoon.
Title: Re: Research Bulletin #62: Lotion Bottle (Artifact 2-8-S-2a)
Post by: Joe Cerniglia on July 30, 2014, 06:44:26 PM
Thanks Ric.  In her report, linked above, Dr. Mass described two remnants with two distinct morphologies on the bottom of the fragment.  The one in the corner was identified as a proteinaceous silkworm accretion.  The one in the center, perhaps faintly visible in your photo but in any case present at the time of her report, was the one identified as lanolin and oil.

Joe Cerniglia
TIGHAR #3078C